Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:09:54 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de>
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_5999_21274212.1391630994448"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_5999_21274212.1391630994448
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mercredi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:47:54 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
> la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e=20
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Dan Ros=C3=A9n <lur...@gmail.com=20
> > <mailto:lur...@gmail.com>> wrote:=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >     I'm using the expansions suggested in=20
> >     http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri, where=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >          lo pa xanto =3D zo'e noi ke'a xanto gi'e zilkancu li pa lo xan=
to,=20
> >=20
> >     but {lo xanto} can be plural, so this removes the effect of the=20
> >     zilkancu part. Is it that I misunderstand this equation, or is it=
=20
> >     just false?=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > I don't think it's quite right to say that "lo xanto" can be plural,=20
> > because Lojban doesn't have grammatical number, so it can't strictly be=
=20
> > singular or plural. But a natural translation of "lo xanto" in this=20
> > context would indeed be plural in English, something like "is 1 countin=
g=20
> > in elephants".=20
>
> If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be (implicitly)=20
> {lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would be counted as one=20
> counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probably be=
=20
> clearer for that reason. As it stands, some people seem to think that=20
> the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier, thus=20
> counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended meaning, so=
=20
> it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.=20
>
>
If you mean simply "one-some" of a mass with the word "singleton", I agree=
=20
with you for English "explanation" of {lo PA broda}. As for Lojban=20
"definition", I would rather support the current definition, and need a=20
Lojban definition of {kancu}, which is used in the definition of {zilkancu}=
.

I suggest as follows:

{x1 kancu x2 x3 x4} =3Dca'e {gau x1 boi x2 se tcita x3 noi ke'a namcu gi'e =
x3=20
mei x4 noi ke'a gradu}

I'm not sure if this definition would be totally reasonable, but at least=
=20
it mentions {x4 noi ke'a gradu}, consequently {x4 pa mei} because of=20
definition of {gradu}=3D{x1 pa mei gi'e ckaji x3 noi se ckilu x2}.
With this definition, {zilkancu}_3 is clearly defined as {pamei}_1, and no=
=20
other explanation is necessary.


However, if you mean "individual" with the word "singleton", it is better=
=20
not to state it, because any mass, no matter if it is used as collective or=
=20
distributive, can be a unit "one-some" in some sense.
An individual is defined as follows (based on Plural Predication by Thomas=
=20
McKay, 2006):

"SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
where RO and DA are not a singular quantifier {ro} and a singular variable=
=20
{da} of Lojban, but a plural quantifier and a plural variable respectively.

If {zilkancu}_3 should be always an individual, {lo ckafi} is not an=20
individual in many cases of universe of discourse, and it cannot be=20
{zilkancu}_3.
However, {lo ckafi} can be naturally a unit:
{mi cpedu tu'a lo pa ckafi} =3D {mi cpedu tu'a zo'e noi ke'a ckafi gi'e=20
zilkancu li pa lo ckafi}

This flexibility of {zilkancu}_3, the unit, is advantage of xorlo, and=20
indispensable for keeping expressiveness of Lojban.

=20
Le jeudi 6 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:49:34 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
>
> So singular variables are simpler and avoid certain problems, like the=20
> {pa xanto} one. On the other hand, it would mean that we can't say {da=20
> simxu lo ka prami} for "There are some X who love each other", and we'd=
=20
> have to use more complicated mechanisms for that, like {da poi su'o mei=
=20
> cu simxu lo ka prami} (which isn't *that* bad).=20
>
>
No, because the domain of {da} of {da poi (ke'a) su'o (re) mei} spans=20
distributively over plural {su'o (re) mei}_1.=20
{da poi ke'a gunma cu simxu lo ka prami} treats the plural {simxu}_1=20
collectively,
just like a developed form of {su'o loi}=3D{su'o da poi ke'a me lo gunma be=
=20
lo}.

=20


Le mercredi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 16:53:25 UTC+9, la gleki a =C3=A9crit :
>
> Sorry for intruding. I need to explain this in simple words for a future=
=20
> lojban tutorial.
> So=20
> {zo'e} denotes an individual/individuals.
> {lo najgenja} =3D carrot/carrots
> {ci lo najgenja cu grake li 60} =3D {ci zo'e noi najgenja cu grake li 60}=
 -=20
> describes carrots. Three of carrots are 60 grams each.
>
> Now I *postulate* an axiom that {[su'o] lo pa najgenja} describes one=20
> carrot (I'll avoid formulae here since i need it for a tutorial, not for =
a=20
> reference grammar).
> {ro lo ci najgenja} describes each of the three carrots.
>
> Two important conclusions:
> 1. {ro lo ci najgenja cu grake li 60} - one carrot is always *60 grams *i=
n=20
> weight.
> 2. {ro loi ci najgenja cu grake li 60} =3D {ro zo'e noi gunma lo ci najge=
nja=20
> cu grake li 60} - describes masses (again of carrots but carrots here are=
=20
> of less importance since carrots are hidden inside gunma2). Each mass of=
=20
> carrots (with three carrots in each mass) is 60 grams so each carrots=20
> weighs *20 grams *on average.
> =20
>
Is my reasoning correct?
>


Yes, it is correct.

=20

> I remember someone saying that {lo} is more vague and might include masse=
s=20
> as well but here {loi} and it's underlying {gunma} move carrots higher. C=
an=20
> we accept raising here? If yes then all this reasoning immediately breaks=
.
>
>

{lo} can be a mass, but it does not say if the mass satisfies the predicate=
=20
collectively or/and distributively.
On the other hand, {loi}=3D{lo gunma be lo} says that the mass satisfies th=
e=20
predicate collectively.

When an outer PA is attached to the sumti, the implicit {da} spans=20
distributively over the domain:
{ro lo ci najgenja}=3D{ro da poi me lo ci najgenja}
{ro loi ci najgenja}=3D{ro da poi me lo gunma be lo ci najgenja}
You see, the domain of {ro lo ci najgenja} is each {najgenja}, and that of=
=20
{ro loi ci najgenja} is each {gunma}.


=20

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

------=_Part_5999_21274212.1391630994448
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le mercredi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:47:54 UTC+9, se=
lpa'i a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204=
, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">la .xorxes. cu cusku =
di'e&nbsp;<br>&gt; On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Dan Ros=C3=A9n &lt;<a ta=
rget=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"LCWTxR1Olx0J" style=3D"color: rgb(=
102, 17, 204);">lur...@gmail.com</a>&nbsp;<br>&gt; &lt;mailto:<a target=3D"=
_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"LCWTxR1Olx0J" style=3D"color: rgb(102, 17,=
 204);">lur...@gmail.com</a>&gt;&gt; wrote:&nbsp;<br>&gt;&nbsp;<br>&gt;&nbs=
p;<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; I'm using the expansions suggested in&nbsp;<br>&gt=
; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+ga=
dri" target=3D"_blank">http://www.lojban.org/tiki/<wbr>BPFK+Section:+gadri<=
/a>, where&nbsp;<br>&gt;&nbsp;<br>&gt;&nbsp;<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &=
nbsp; &nbsp;lo pa xanto =3D zo'e noi ke'a xanto gi'e zilkancu li pa lo xant=
o,&nbsp;<br>&gt;&nbsp;<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; but {lo xanto} can be plural, =
so this removes the effect of the&nbsp;<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; zilkancu part=
. Is it that I misunderstand this equation, or is it&nbsp;<br>&gt; &nbsp; &=
nbsp; just false?&nbsp;<br>&gt;&nbsp;<br>&gt;&nbsp;<br>&gt; I don't think i=
t's quite right to say that "lo xanto" can be plural,&nbsp;<br>&gt; because=
 Lojban doesn't have grammatical number, so it can't strictly be&nbsp;<br>&=
gt; singular or plural. But a natural translation of "lo xanto" in this&nbs=
p;<br>&gt; context would indeed be plural in English, something like "is 1 =
counting&nbsp;<br>&gt; in elephants".&nbsp;<br><br>If I may, Dan is asking =
why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be (implicitly)&nbsp;<br>{lo ci xanto}, in w=
hich case three elephants would be counted as one&nbsp;<br>counting off by =
threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probably be&nbsp;<br>clearer fo=
r that reason. As it stands, some people seem to think that&nbsp;<br>the zi=
lkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier, thus&nbsp;<br>c=
ounting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended meaning, so&nbs=
p;<br>it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.&nbsp;=
<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>If you mean simply "one-some"=
 of a mass with the word "singleton", I agree with you for English "explana=
tion" of {lo PA broda}. As for Lojban "definition", I would rather support =
the current definition, and need a Lojban definition of {kancu}, which is u=
sed in the definition of {zilkancu}.</div><div><br></div><div>I suggest as =
follows:</div><div><br></div><div>{x1 kancu x2 x3 x4} =3Dca'e {gau x1 boi x=
2 se tcita x3 noi ke'a namcu gi'e x3 mei x4 noi ke'a gradu}</div><div><br><=
/div><div>I'm not sure if this definition would be totally reasonable, but =
at least it mentions {x4 noi ke'a gradu}, consequently {x4 pa mei} because =
of definition of {gradu}=3D{x1 pa mei gi'e ckaji x3 noi se ckilu x2}.</div>=
<div>With this definition, {zilkancu}_3 is clearly defined as {pamei}_1, an=
d no other explanation is necessary.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><di=
v>However, if you mean "individual" with the word "singleton", it is better=
 not to state it, because any mass, no matter if it is used as collective o=
r distributive, can be a unit "one-some" in some sense.</div><div>An indivi=
dual is defined as follows (based on Plural Predication by Thomas McKay, 20=
06):</div><div><br></div><div>"SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a=
 me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}</div><div>where RO and DA are not a singular qu=
antifier {ro} and a singular variable {da} of Lojban, but a plural quantifi=
er and a plural variable respectively.</div><div><br></div><div>If {zilkanc=
u}_3 should be always an individual, {lo ckafi} is not an individual in man=
y cases of universe of discourse, and it cannot be {zilkancu}_3.</div><div>=
However, {lo ckafi} can be naturally a unit:</div><div>{mi cpedu tu'a lo pa=
 ckafi} =3D {mi cpedu tu'a zo'e noi ke'a ckafi gi'e zilkancu li pa lo ckafi=
}</div><div><br></div><div>This flexibility of {zilkancu}_3, the unit, is a=
dvantage of xorlo, and indispensable for keeping expressiveness of Lojban.<=
/div></div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div>Le jeudi 6 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:=
49:34 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft: 1ex;"><br>So singular variables are simpler and avoid certain problems,=
 like the=20
<br>{pa xanto} one. On the other hand, it would mean that we can't say {da=
=20
<br>simxu lo ka prami} for "There are some X who love each other", and we'd=
=20
<br>have to use more complicated mechanisms for that, like {da poi su'o mei=
=20
<br>cu simxu lo ka prami} (which isn't *that* bad).
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, because the domain of {da} of {da =
poi (ke'a) su'o (re) mei} spans distributively over plural {su'o (re) mei}_=
1.&nbsp;</div><div>{da poi ke'a gunma cu simxu lo ka prami} treats the plur=
al {simxu}_1 collectively,</div><div>just like a developed form of {su'o lo=
i}=3D{su'o da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo}.</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;<=
/div><div><br><br>Le mercredi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 16:53:25 UTC+9, la gleki =
a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204)=
; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">Sorry for =
intruding. I need to explain this in simple words for a future lojban tutor=
ial.<div>So&nbsp;</div><div>{zo'e} denotes an individual/individuals.</div>=
<div>{lo najgenja} =3D carrot/carrots</div><div>{ci lo najgenja cu grake li=
 60} =3D {ci zo'e noi najgenja cu grake li 60} - describes carrots. Three o=
f carrots are 60 grams each.</div><div><div><br></div><div>Now I&nbsp;<u>po=
stulate</u>&nbsp;an axiom&nbsp;that {[su'o] lo pa najgenja} describes one c=
arrot (I'll avoid formulae here since i need it for a tutorial, not for a r=
eference grammar).</div><div>{ro lo ci najgenja} describes each of the thre=
e carrots.</div></div><div><br>Two important conclusions:</div><div>1. {ro =
lo ci najgenja cu grake li 60} - one carrot is always&nbsp;<b>60 grams&nbsp=
;</b>in weight.</div><div>2. {ro loi ci najgenja cu grake li 60} =3D {ro zo=
'e noi gunma lo ci najgenja cu grake li 60} - describes masses (again of ca=
rrots but carrots here are of less importance since carrots are hidden insi=
de gunma2). Each mass of carrots (with three carrots in each mass) is 60 gr=
ams so each carrots weighs&nbsp;<b>20 grams&nbsp;</b>on average.</div><div>=
&nbsp;<br></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: r=
gb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div>Is my reasoning correct?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div><br></div><div>Yes, it is correct.</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;<=
/div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; =
border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-=
style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I remember someone =
saying that {lo} is more vague and might include masses as well but here {l=
oi} and it's underlying {gunma} move carrots higher. Can we accept raising =
here? If yes then all this reasoning immediately breaks.</div><div><br></di=
v></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div>{lo} can be a =
mass, but it does not say if the mass satisfies the predicate collectively =
or/and distributively.</div><div>On the other hand, {loi}=3D{lo gunma be lo=
} says that the mass satisfies the predicate collectively.</div><div><br></=
div><div>When an outer PA is attached to the sumti, the implicit {da} spans=
 distributively over the domain:</div><div>{ro lo ci najgenja}=3D{ro da poi=
 me lo ci najgenja}</div><div>{ro loi ci najgenja}=3D{ro da poi me lo gunma=
 be lo ci najgenja}</div><div>You see, the domain of {ro lo ci najgenja} is=
 each {najgenja}, and that of {ro loi ci najgenja} is each {gunma}.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div><br></div></div><div>&nbsp;</div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

------=_Part_5999_21274212.1391630994448--